Your responded, "I have been proposing a catastrophe hypothesis.
Shimmrich said that it won't work because certain scientific inquiries in
Diagenesis. He did not elaborate. I asked to know how he thought
Diagenesis disproved my hypothesis. I have now gotten some resource books
on Diagenesis and have not yet seen anything which would rule out
catastrophic deposition followed by litification giving what we now see in
the rocks."

paper on your "catastrophe" interpretation of all relevant and published
scientific data and why it is a more consistent and/or elegant
interpretation than that offered by diagenesis and have it peer reviewed.
However, you can only conclude that your interpretation is superior than
that offered by diagenesis if you understand diagenesis and the supporting
evidence. You cannot expect somebody to do that for you and the impression
I got from your exchange with Steve was that you expected him to educate
you. Once you have addressed comments from your peers, submit the paper to
a scientific journal. IMHO, this is a better approach than asking for
comments without the manuscript. I'm not a geologist but in my field of
study we are always circulating manuscripts review.